Multiple successive arrests under mere suspicion of damage to property and social activism

Facts

The author was arrested on suspicion of his involvement in the throwing of petrol bombs at the Russian Embassy in Minsk which caused damage to a car parked nearby. He was placed in a temporary detention ward for 72 hours. Without being released and under a new arrest warrant, he was again detained for another 72 hours on suspicion of breaking the windows of the Trade Union House and throwing a lit pyrotechnical torch. The author claims that the State violated Article 9 when he was arrested under seven arrest warrants, of 72 hours’ duration each, for a total period of 21 days, which he spent in the same temporary detention facility. Further, the author claims that the State violated Articles 7 and 10 when he was daily subjected to ill-treatment by law enforcement officers and that he was placed in unbearable conditions while in detention. Additionally, the author claimed that the State violated Article 14 when he was interviewed for a long time without interruption and without participation of his counsel nor was his father, a trained legal practitioner, allowed to contribute to his defence. Lastly, the author claims that the State violated Article 26 when he was persecuted for his views, beliefs, and social activism.

Admissibility

The author’s claims under articles 7, 10, and 26 are inadmissible for failure to substantiate due to the general nature of such claims. However, the claims under articles 9 (1), (3), (4) and 14 (3)(d) relating to his arbitrary arrest, placement in remand detention, and impartiality of judges.

Merits

First, the practice of multiple successive arrests, resulting in continuous deprivation of liberty without formal indictment and independent judicial scrutiny contains elements of arbitrariness, which are incompatible with requirements of article 9 (1) of the Covenant. Remand in custody on criminal charges must be based on an individualized determination that it is reasonable and necessary taking into account all the circumstances. Making general inferences as to the danger of the author’s absconding and the risk of his obstructing the course of justice, the domestic authorities did not indicate any factual basis for such fears, nor justified their respective decisions through making an assessment of the author’s individual circumstances. Second, the prosecutor could not be regarded as having the impartiality necessary to be considered an officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power within the meaning of article 9(3). Third, the author was represented by professional counsels of his own choosing, thus article 14(3)(d) was not violated in this regard but it has been violated through the failure by the courts to ensure his attendance  during the proceedings. In the light of this finding, the Committee decides not to examine separately the claims raising issues under article 9 (4) of the Covenant.

Recommendations

The State party is obligated, inter alia, to provide the author with adequate compensation, including reimbursement of any legal costs incurred. The State party is also under an obligation to take all steps necessary to prevent similar violations from occurring in the future.

Implementation

Deadline: 19 April 2023

By: Maricon Torres Lorenzo